Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd

Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd

The Second Defendant's persistent failure to comply with costs budgeting requirements, lack of adequate explanation, and disregard for procedural rules and the overriding objective render the default serious and unjustified. Granting relief would undermine the overriding objective and be unprincipled. The Second Defendant is to be treated as having filed a budget limited to applicable court fees under CPR 3.14.

Parties
Claimant: Heathfield International LLC; First Defendant: Axiom Stone (London) Limited; Second Defendant: Medecall Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Relief From Sanctions After Late Filing of Costs Budget
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions refused. Second Defendant's costs budget limited to court fees.
Legal Topics
Costs Budgeting, Relief From Sanctions, Case Management, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Budgeting Relief From Sanctions Case Management Security for Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heathfield International LLC

Claimant

Axiom Stone (London) Limited

First Defendant

Medecall Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Relief From Sanctions After Late Filing of Costs Budget

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant should be granted relief from sanctions under CPR 3.14 for late filing of a costs budget
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant's conduct and explanation for default justify relief
  3. 3 Impact of the default on the litigation, parties, and court

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant's persistent failure to comply with costs budgeting requirements, lack of adequate explanation, and disregard for procedural rules and the overriding objective render the default serious and unjustified. Granting relief would undermine the overriding objective and be unprincipled. The Second Defendant is to be treated as having filed a budget limited to applicable court fees under CPR 3.14.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions refused. Second Defendant's costs budget limited to court fees.

Orders

  • Second Defendant (Medecall Limited) is to be treated as having filed a costs budget comprising only the applicable court fees pursuant to CPR 3.14.